The Trump Administration, Essay Example

The rhetorical agenda for the article is to convince the Trump Administration to urge employers to issue hazard pay for their employees and to align employee policymakers with the civilized world by giving workers their mandated paid sick leave. Three major audiences are targeted by the article. The first group is the legislators charged with enforcing laws and mandates, of which the Trump Administration is one of them. This group is essential since they have the power to draft and pass Bills that ensure that sick and hazard leave for employees are upheld by employers. The Republicans are key since they rejected a Bill related to paid sick leave; convincing them of the benefits of the mandate is essential. The other audience group is the employers. They oversee their employees and have a role in ensuring that their wellbeing is upheld. Convincing employees to ensure paid sick leave is availed to all employees is critical for avoiding cases where employers deny employees these rights. Another audience group is the general American public. The article aims to make them aware of the issues affecting employees at different organizations. Persuading the general public about the importance of paid sick and hazard leave will create awareness of the issue’s importance throughout the US.

Terministic screens are used in the article to further the arguments related to employee sick leave. It is apparent that within the context of the article, workers are forced to choose between their health and their jobs. It is a dilemma since workers need jobs to gain income and also need proper health to execute their jobs. The terministic screen is prominent in the article.

A logical fallacy within the article is Ad Hominem when the author comments, ‘But whatever the rules and whatever the official policy, big companies consistently violate these laws to harass their workers out of taking time off’ (Carver, 2020). It is a logical fallacy since not all big companies harass their employees; some uphold sick leave as a requirement. Further, the author only includes big companies as being responsible for harassing their employees. Small and mid-sized companies are also involved in the violation of employee sick leave. Another logical fallacy is hasty generalization where the author thinks that all of the employees’ problems would be solved by granting employees sick leave. It could not be further from the truth since employees suffer from additional issues such as low pay and long working hours.

An error in argumentation is identified when the author attempts to point out that the Republicans were wrong for rejecting sick leave. The error lies in the fact that the author did not stop to consider some of the reasons for the decision. It prevented the author from hearing the Republican’s side of the argument. Pursuing one’s beliefs needs to be done while considering the opinions and perspectives of the opposing side.

The support of the article is valid since it touches on a relevant topic in the US work industry. There are some workers who are enduring harsh work environments as a result of being denied sick leave. They will likely support the article and its attempt to advocate for worker rights.

The initial credibility of the author is valid since the author, Robin Carver, is an associate in Policy Studies. The author attempts to gain the trust of her audience by explaining her own personal experience of having to work despite feeling sick. ‘In the spring of 2016, my chronic sinusitis had flared up again (Carver, 2020).’ To back up her assertion that a large number of workers do not have access to paid sick leave, the author refers to statistics that were compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39 percent of workers in service occupations have no official sick leave. These figures rise as high as 69 percent in the lowest wage brackets’ (Carver, 2020). The author’s derived credibility is strong since there is support for her stand on a lack of employee sick leave. She uses her experience as the focus on the discussion to showcase the hardships endured by other employees.

The terminal credibility of the author is weak since she only reminds the audience of the importance of sick leave in the US work industry. The author communicates that paid sick leave is essential, especially in the food and beverage industry, since denying employees their sick leave presents a risk of infection to other employees and customers. The author’s tone throughout the text is mainly negative, which is likely to cause opposition from other stakeholders. ‘Big companies consistently violate these laws to harass their workers out of taking time off when they’re sick’ (Carver, 2020). It indicates that the author has the perception that these companies do not care about their employees. Further, the author makes reference to individuals who work for large companies as the main casualties; she is able to connect with other people who work for large corporations.

An affective response to the content refers to self-disclosure. This is done through a description of the author’s experience on the topic. It allows the generation of sensitivity on the topic. Meanwhile, a behavioral response to the content involves the creation of feelings of empathy related to the topic. The author manages to generate feelings of pity for the employees affected by the withholding of paid sick leave. A cognitive response to the text involves an attempt to gain knowledge on why most companies do not grant sick leave, probably through research. Using cognitive responses will convince the audience about the importance of paid sick leave. Reactance in the text is present since there is a feeling like the chances for Americans to access sick leave are limited. It creates an environment where unfairness toward employees predominates. Distrust presents itself since readers are likely to feel skeptical about the claims made about the virus and that they cannot trust their employers to provide safe working conditions. Inertia also presents itself since there is a feeling that a lot of effort is required to make changes to the current state of paid sick leave in the US.

There is scrutiny identified in the text. The author makes a visible jab at the Republicans for rejecting the paid sick leave bill. It is rooted in a belief that the actions of the legislators were wrong and that they were probably motivated by individual interests and gains. The author criticizes the legislators since they did not uphold their legal mandate to uphold the rights of the people who elected them.

The writer overcomes resistance to the topic by presenting a personalized description of the event. The author puts the audience in her shoes since she was legitimately sick. Providing the audience with a perspective of being sick and having paid sick leave denies for a legitimate illness reduces resistance against the issue. Using this approach, the author is able to gain the support of the readers, which potentially advances the dissemination of awareness related to the topic.

In conclusion, it is evident that the article is focused on urging employers to issue hazard pay for their employees. It is also concerned with aligning employee policymakers with the civilized world by giving workers their mandated paid sick leave. A discussion of the ethos, logos and pathos within the article have been performed. The analysis of the article has yielded essential findings. 

References

Carver, R. (2020). In a Pandemic, Service Workers Need Paid Sick Leave —Now. Inequality.org. https://inequality.org/research/pandemic-service-workers-paid-sick-leave/